| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
| ||||||||||
|
|
Darlene Seymour, Esquire Proud Winner of the The Putrid Plecostomus Award. |
|
|
 Recent Photo |
There's an old joke that asks the question: What are the three secrets to building a successful business? Location, location, location.
Sort of a take-off on the joke: Can you tell me how to get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.
It seems to us that any first-year law student can tell you that the foundation for a court's parcipitation is jurisdiction. Without it, the court's ruling is worthless. So, what sort of pea-brained, moronic lawyer would file a federal lawsuit in a state court? Why, Darlene Seymour, Esquire! Counsel for Continental Enterprises and its worthless CEO, Karl Manders. We think the picture to the right is of her in college. |
|
| She's so off base she could have her own line of yo-yos. We have papers on cases where she has filed federal claims in a state court. Why on earth would a "reasonably intelligent" lawyer do this? Perhaps she is hoping the defendants are dumber than she is and that they will be scared when they receive a court complaint? Or, and we think this is the real reason, is it because filing in state court costs a lot less than filing in federal court? The filing fee in Marion County as of July 2007 was $133.00 as opposed to $350.00 in federal court. So, the party who moves to have the case relocated to federal court, where it should have been in the first place, has to pay the higher federal filing fee! Darlene? Are you doing this because you are a cheap bitch or because Karl Manders has told you to save money this way? Because, they way we read the Lanham Act, Title 15 Chapter 22 §1121, ONLY federal courts can hear Lanham Act complaints. |
|
 Without Makeup |  Halloween |  With Makeup |
|
At one time, Darlene Seymour was a trial and appellate attorney at the law firm of Kiefer & McGoff. She practiced in
the areas of criminal defense, family law, civil litigation, and attorney discipline defense. Her firm, Kiefer & McGoff,
went belly up in 2005. Really, that comes as no surprise with attorneys like Darlene Seymour on the roster. And,
having a law firm is like being able to print your own money. Most of the lawyers went to Bingham McHale LLP.
Not Darlene. She took employment with Continental Enterprises and became a consummate
bottom feeder. It seems she and the former General
Counsel for Continental Enterprises, William Mansfield, couldn't find a real job with a real law firm.
We refer to companies like Continental Enterprises as trademark extortionists. They make claims of infringement and demand payment from the alleged infringers to avoid lawsuits. One problem with this is that many of the people "extorted" are not really infringing. But, out of fear or to avoid costly litigation, they often settle by paying the extortion amount. Tell us, Darlene, do you get a real warm fuzzy trying to wreck the lives of little people who are not doing anything wrong? Do you also pull the wings off of flies or stomp on frogs for entertainment? |
| We also find interesting the legal decision, 29A04-0307-CV-366, Court of Appeals for Indiana, July 15, 2004, where the justices remarked in a footnote that they |
"express no opinion as to whether the actions of Van Tassel, McGoff, or Seymour amounted to attorney negligence or malpractice." |
| Whoa there, Nellie. What? Why would these justices make a statement like this? Where there's smoke there is fire. Seems both McGoff and Seymour represented "Jack". In the decision: "On June 6, 2003, Jack obtained representation from Kevin McGoff ("McGoff") and Darlene Seymour ("Seymour")." However, "After realizing that they too had a conflict of interest, McGoff and Seymour moved to withdraw their appearance on Jack's behalf on June 20, 2003." But, the court didn't rule on the Motion To Withdraw until June 24, a day after a scheduled June 23rd hearing at which McGoff and Seymour failed to appear for their client. You see, as we understand the procedure, when a motion to withdraw is filed, the attorney is still obligated to represent his or her client until such time as the court approves the motion. So Darlene Seymour, as we understand it, had a legal and ethical obligation to appear on behalf of her client on June 23rd and failed to perform her lawyerly duties. Why are we not surprised? Could that be the basis of the footnote? |
"Jack does not allege his attorneys' failure to attend the June 23, 2003 hearing or inform him of the hearing was excusable. Jack merely alleges that the failure of his attorneys (McGoff and Seymour) should not be attributable to him. See Br. of Appellant at 13 ("The negligence of Jack's post-trial attorneys by failing to inform him of the motion to correct error hearing and failing to appear on his behalf should not be imputed to him under the circumstances of this case."). Had Jack asserted that the actions of his attorneys were excusable, the presentation of evidence at a hearing may have been useful in establishing excusable neglect." |
| Sounds like to us that the justices are saying they could have found Seymour guilty of "attorney negligence or malpractice" had their client made the claim but it appears he didn't know he could. Too bad. Maybe a bad fish would have been removed from the pond. |
|
|
|
We were fortunate to obtain a rare picture of Darlene Seymour taken while she was trolling for commissions from
Hansen's Beverages.
Not happy with tracking down "real" infringers, Darlene and staff began fabricating allegations of trademark infringement, trying to "lure" suckers into her maw. |
|
|
General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Corporate Lawyers |
